[BUQUICK]

Surely this is a pretty common combination: 66/67 GTO, E-heads, cast iron manifolds, 4-speed? I would imagine that there are several here on this board with this setup, right?

My dad has the engine out of his '66 GTO for a rebuild, so I talked him into buying a set of new Edlebrock heads. Well this also means his regular exhaust manifolds wouldn't fit. He like a stock look so he bought a set of ceramic coated Ram Air 4 style from Ram Air Restorations. He tried to install the engine today and he's having trouble. He already has the manifolds installed on the engine and he said "it's too wide" and won't pass the upper control arms, also said it's "too far back so the motor mounts won't line up". I haven't seen it yet but this 2nd issue sounds like he means that the part of the manifold that turns down will hit the crossmember before the engine will be far enough forward to line up with the mounts. Before he bought the manifolds he specifically asked if they would fit a '66/'67 and they said that this set was clearanced to fit a '66/67.

If you have this setup can you please enlighten us on the simplest way to make this work?

He also said that the brake line to the RH front will have to be replaced and rerouted to get away from the manifold.

Thanks for any suggestions or help, otherwise my Dad will make me pay him back for the heads and manifolds and he will reinstall the old stuff

[Tripower455]

You'll need a set of headers if you want to use the round port heads. There weren't any stock round port manifolds made for or that fit the '66-'67 chassis.....

[BUQUICK]

Actually the manifolds we bought from Ram Air Reproductions (part# RM-4-OSA) www.ramairreproduction.com are supposed to fit '64-'67 chassis.

http://host284.ipowerweb.com/~ramair...75901380866090

The description for this part says: "Pair, New for all 64-67 GTO, LM & Tempests using round port or Edlebrock heads. These require one 2-bolt and one 3-bolt flange (sold seperately). 2.45" collector.

These are our famous RM-4-OS modified to fit in 66-67 Abody without any mods needed. In the 64-65 Abody you may need to do some minor grinding on rear of underengine xmember to achieve good fit. Many 64-65 customers have also attained excellent fit by relocating engine .250-.500" to rear."

Surely someone else here has bought these manifolds and had some experience with them? anyone?

[BUQUICK]

Well, after hours and hours it was obvious there were only a couple of choices if we were going to remain with cast iron manifolds:

#1- move the engine back at least 3/4" which brought up several negative issues (modified engine mounts, shifter no longer being centered in console, possible driveshaft length issues, modified pinion angle, engine fan even farther from radiator, distributor even closer to firewall, etc)
or
#2- notch the frame on the driver's side so the manifold will not hit it. Basically had to cut a notch and then box it in, took several hours to cut and then weld but it was the only way it was going to fit, period. Still have an issue with the steering shaft hitting the manifold that isn't resolved yet.

The sales guy said they would fit a '66/67 with no mods, which isn't true for us with a 400 and stock motor mounts, maybe someone else has had better luck.

I sure hope the Edelbrock heads make the car run noticeable better than the stock #62 heads that were on the car before, otherwise ole Dad is going to choke me for making him do all this extra work.

[Tripower455]

Those must be relatively new...... There were no available cast iron manifolds for the '66 when I did mine........ I ended up with ported 6xs and Dougs headers.....

The E heads should show some improvement over the stockers, but are still being choked without a set of headers, IMHO........

[Bryan Jensen]

I have the 67 ram air repro manifolds, but mine are the standard D-port, so....

[Tempest]

BUQUICK,I am a little confused from your posts so I would suggest you look at your motor mount position. In your first post you say that you have a motor "out of a 66 GTO", to me that is a 389 with 3 engine mount holes. In your last post you mention a stock 400? I was wondering if it is a newer 400?, it may have 5 engine mount holes and you may be able to move it enough by simply moving the mounts. I don't know what year Pontiac put 5 mounting holes in their blocks but I will guess around 71? or 72? I hope this helps as I hate to see someone have to cut a frame when they don't need to.
Good Luck with this.

[Tripower455]

5 holes were from around 71-75 or so, but there are some variations in exact years. For sure, my '72 400 and '74 455 block had the 5 holes.

I understand about retaining the stock look, but a set of Dougs would have been less hassle, and much more performance. I wanted mine to retain a more or less stock appearance, but in the end decided that there was little point in paying for ported heads, then choking them with a set of relatively restrictive manifolds!

[Shadowjack]

You can't relocate the engine by moving to a different set of mounting holes--in the first place they're not spaced right and in the second place it screws up all the other locations like the crossmember, the driveshaft, the shifter, the clutch--just as you said, Buquick. 389s don't have 3-hole blocks anyway--all two-bolt until the '70 Firebirds were released.
Don't know if this would help, but I've got a new set of '67 D-port RA manifolds I just bought from Pypes, still in the box, that I could measure to see if there's any difference in the castings from yours. Or would you think there's no common point to get a measurement? I'm thinking your problem is mainly in the short-turn section around the frame, yes?